> Received: from MAILQUEUE by OOI (Mercury 1.21); 5 Aug 97 21:12:34 +800
> Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 5 Aug 97 21:12:27 +800
> Received: from anthrax (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> Tue, 5 Aug 1997 20:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
> Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 20:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970805223250.25047B-100000@earth>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Precedence: bulk
> From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [PEN-L:11620] Re: OJ and a full moon II
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
> X-Comment: Progressive Economics
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-PMFLAGS: 34078848
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To James Craven:
>
> Many thanks for your exhaustive answer to my query. I now understand
> the legal logic connecting and separating the two Simpson trials,
> but I still feel a cloying sense of wrongness about it on a deeper level.
>
> Re your later rant on commodification: Here in Milwaukee it seems that
> every week the number of rolling billboards in the city bus fleet
> is increasing. The transit authority (or whoever it's in hock to)
> has been pushing this particular envelope for about 2 years without
> arousing any organized opposition, so a full fleet of totally commercial
> trompe l'oeil may be in the cards. Since this treatment darkens the
> interiors and makes it harder to maintain one's external bearings,
> the contempt being shown toward hapless passengers could hardly be
> more blatant.
>
> This is my "favorite" example of ever-plunging commodification;
> Chris Whittle's attempted coup with Channel One runs a close second.
>
> valis
> Occupied America
>
>
> -- All lies have the same pedigree --
>
Response (Jim C) I too have a sense of wrongness at a deeper level.
On the other hand, any crime may involve many dimensions only some of
which a person may be charged for and may involve damages but with no
victims left or may involve tangible damages without criminal intent
or an actual crime having been committed; we therefore supposedly
separate criminal and tort law. In the criminal case, they use the
term "guilty" and no pretense (except recently by allowing victims to
testify at sentencing) of representing the actual victims but rather
society as a whole (no concrete damages directed to the victims can
be assessed); in the tort case, they use the term "liable" and make
no pretense of representing "society" and therefore can only assess
monetary damages for the direct victims but cannot apply criminal
penalties for society.
On the point raised by Jim Devine about the Simi valley case in which
the Cops were charged with Federal Offenses being close to double
jeapordy, well any crime involves many dimensions, and strictly
speaking those cops were not charged with the offenses for which they
were acquitted but rather separate charges that flowed from but were
separate or distinct from the original charges. In the same fashion,
Simpson was not charged with murder in the civil trial but rather for
having caused tangible damages from wrongful death. In fact, had
Simpson been convicted in the criminal case, that fact supposedly
could not be used as "evidence" in the tort case and there have been
cases where someone was found criminally guilty but not liable for
civil damages (rare but it happens); so the reverse is also possible
and permissible.
Another example relative to the point Jim Devine raised, in a rape
case there may be several elements including kidnapping, forcible
confinement, battery etc as well as rape. Plea bargaining may involve
dropping some of those charges with the implication that the other
charges may be filed simultaneously or even separately; there have
been cases where someone was acquitted for one charge but found
guilty for others even though all the crimes were tied in with one
main crime. The LA cops who were tried and convicted on Federal
Charges were charged and convicted of separate but related charges
(charges that could not be filed except by federal authorities)--
violation of human rights--and the charges against them were no
different than filing several separate but related charges against a
rapist (kidnapping, unlawful confinement, battery etc.). It might
sound like double jeapordy but that would only apply if the exact
same charge were tried twice; it just reflects that many crimes
involve many dimensions and related crimes. Then there is also the
problem of crimes committed in the course of defense like perjury etc.
Jim Craven
*-------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "Those who take the most from the table,*
* James Craven teach contentment. *
* Dept of Economics Those for whom the taxes are destined, *
* Clark College demand sacrifice. *
* 1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd. Those who eat their fill, *
* Vancouver, Wa. 98663 speak to the hungry, *
* (360) 992-2283 of wonderful times to come. *
* Fax: (360) 992-2863 Those who lead the country into the abyss,*
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] call ruling difficult, *
* for ordinary folk." (Bertolt Brecht) *
* MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
